Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. 10% Off Store-Wide Sale Until 2 April!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: What is a "Real" Reference?  (Read 489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
What is a "Real" Reference?
« on: March 06, 2023, 07:43:18 pm »
In another thread, someone said that a description of "cf" is not a real reference. I know what cf means, but I always equated it with things like "variation of" or something like that. These terms, and other similar ones, are used all the time. I use it when I can't identify a magistrate for a certain coin type, for example.

So, what is a "real" reference? It seems that maybe to some it means the exact coin, since every coin is a variation. I actually don't think auction catalogs are "real" references and they get used all the time. I always avoid auction catalog references as much as possible as my main identifier, including BCD, etc. I use them when that is all I have, but if I have a "normal" reference, I won't even include them. But, why is cf, for example, a bad thing? I actually don't think it is, especially when it is a variation of a type in a normal publication. Seems to me, auction catalogs are the most suspect, actually, unless other references are included.

Curious what the consensus is on this, maybe I have gotten it wrong all this time.

Virgil

Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2023, 08:54:54 pm »
I would use “var.” if it is a variation (different magistrate, mint officiant, etc.) from the one listed (still the same type), but “cf.” if I am just comparing a coin to another coin of a similar type, but not the same type. Perhaps a totally different mint, or perhaps they share an obverse but not a reverse and one is unrecorded.  “Cf. “ is therefore much more broad. Like saying, I don’t know the reference, but look at these which are somewhat similar.

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2023, 09:16:46 pm »
Nick,
I totally get that. Yet, this isn't how it is really used, at least in my experience. I guess this is my confusion. The discussion on the Bargylia coin is like this. I get the different mint thing. And I am not sure I would ever use cf for coins with a reverse or obverse that was different, that just seems too broad. Anyway, food for thought.

Virgil

Offline Ken W2

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2023, 12:05:51 am »

Hey Virgil:  I tend to think of references as scholarly works the intended purpose of which, at least in substantial part, was to catalogue and aid others in the attribution of coins. I agree that auction catalogs are not references to be used unless as an absolute last resort, if ever.
 I don’t think a reference must list or assign a number, much less depict, the exact coin to qualify as an authorative reference. However, I do think the work must at least identify the features of the exact coin. That Claudius II she wolf reverse ant  I’ve been inquiring about is an example.  In Alfoldi 1938, Alfoldi lists those coins by obverse design and legend, lists  the reverse designs and legends, states which obverses and reverses were used together, and discusses (but does not list separately) that the coins may have no, one, or two pellets under obverse bust signifying the officina. MER-RIC, on the other hand, is assigning numbers to each of those coins right down to the particular officina/number of pellets.  In my view both are clearly acceptable references, it’s just that MER-RIC is more detailed in assigning a label or number. However, there is a downside to that approach in that MER-RIC doesn’t list each obv, rev, and officina/pellets combination, apparently until they have an example in hand (or otherwise have sufficient proof) which means that coins Alfoldi told us in 1938 exists, remain unlisted in MER-RIC.

Offline shanxi

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 3032
    • My gallery
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2023, 02:24:48 am »
Since I used the term "real reference" I guess I have to explain.

In the case of the bronze coin under discussion, there was a "cf." (confer to) reference for a silver coin. Nevertheless, the refernce was interesting because the illustrations and the legend are almost identical to the bronze coin.
 
The link and also the reference were therefore useful for the attribution, but not a reference that really fits the coin.

Later, another user posts a reference for the bronze type which fits.


Probably there is a better term than "real", but if a cf. reference is all you have, you can call a coin unpublished.



Offline Molinari

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 4549
  • My defeat, if understood, should be my glory
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2023, 07:23:20 am »
Since I used the term "real reference" I guess I have to explain.

In the case of the bronze coin under discussion, there was a "cf." (confer to) reference for a silver coin. Nevertheless, the refernce was interesting because the illustrations and the legend are almost identical to the bronze coin.
 
The link and also the reference were therefore useful for the attribution, but not a reference that really fits the coin.

Later, another user posts a reference for the bronze type which fits.


Probably there is a better term than "real", but if a cf. reference is all you have, you can call a coin unpublished.

This would fit my understanding of the proper use of "cf." and how it would be used in the catalog of new varieties for Koinon.

Offline Lech Stępniewski

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2900
    • NOT IN RIC
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2023, 08:01:27 am »
"cf." = something somehow similar

"real reference" = that's it!
Lech Stępniewski
NOT IN RIC
Poland

Offline Curtis JJ

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • CONSERVATORI: Ancient Coins & Their Provenances
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2023, 03:53:55 pm »
Interesting questions... I’m dividing my thoughts in two… First comment, re: groupings of references…

Overall, my references seem to fall into four categories: “this coin,” “these dies,” this general type (i.e., same designs and legends), and variants & comparanda (“cf.,” “var.”). A few coins get all those, but for most the first isn’t available, and often not the second either. Sometimes it’s worth including a reference to comparison coins, sometimes not. Occasionally a variant or comparanda are all I can find.

I do think “cf.” or “var.” is an explicit acknowledgement that the referenced coin or type is somewhat different. That doesn’t make it not “real” (I didn’t interpret the original comment as intending that, really). It’s just an acknowledgment that a fully satisfactory or adequate reference is lacking (or at least not that one).

If a specific coin has been published in an appropriate outlet, of course, it’s good to cite it (as “this coin” or “this coin illustrated”). If not, it's best to cite a coin of the same dies. But that's not always possible either.

There can’t be a strict rule for “how close” a reference must be, since we have many categories of varying precision (any/all of which may be accurate), and they change over time.

I’ve used my Archaic Herakles Hekte to discuss the “categorization” process before (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=174786). It “used to be” a BMC Ionia 7-11, or Babelon 18 or Pozzi 2373-5 (all as Ionia, Erythrai). If lucky, one might even be able to cite a die match for one of these. Almost a century later, there were a few new options but nothing had fundamentally changed: SNG von Aulock 1942 (see also Supp. 7891), SNG Kayhan 737-8, Boston MFA 1806-7 (also all Erythrai).



Then, in 2020, everything changed. Fischer-Bossert reassigned the mint from Erythrai (Ionia) to Herakleia (Bithynia). More importantly for this comment, he published an extensive die corpus for the series. Mine was Group 2, No. 10 (V 5’’/R 9; this coin illustrated). It was the only example of its die combination (and possibly for either die).

Overnight, we went from perhaps 1 or 2 dozen “types” of these Hektes, to at least 173 different types (and over 215 dies), across 14 Groups.

This coin went from being "common" to "unique." Of course, the rarity only changed in the sense that we had a shakeup of categories. But the shakeup reveals a process that's always there.

https://www.academia.edu/45579782/

There’s no single correct answer for which reference to use. (But there are certainly wrong ones!) It’s up to the purposes and preferences of the cataloger to decide which levels of precision to use. Is it enough to give a reference that covers all the Herakles Hektes from this mint (BMC 7-11)? Or from the same period (Fischer-Bossert Group 2)? Specific die pair (No. 10)?

Now that Fischer-Bossert is available, though, and I am citing it, I have begun to put “cf.” or “var.” in front of some of the others. If I weren’t also citing the more precise (i.e., die-level) reference, and just had von Aulock, Kayhan, and BMFA, I would not add “cf.” They’re not incorrect references (aside from the mint location); but they are no longer consistent with the die-level categories given by Fischer-Bossert. Different collectors would deal with that issue in different ways; I might find other solutions better than what I have now. My point is just that neither the categories nor their interpretations are fixed.
“Collect the collectors…” John W Adams’ advice to J Orosz (Asylum 38, 2: p51)

Galleries https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=27154

Offline Curtis JJ

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 435
    • CONSERVATORI: Ancient Coins & Their Provenances
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2023, 04:05:51 pm »
… Second, re: Auction catalogs as sources. I agree, generally, with the preference for using non-commercial, scholarly sources over sale catalogs in most instances, and that it's sound reasoning to try to separate commercial and scholarly interests.

But I would argue that certain auction catalogs become “something more” (usually because they intended to be something other than commercial). Two early examples: Pozzi in 1921 (for Greek) and Ratto in 1930 (for Byzantine). Both served as primary general references for decades (Ratto still does at times), and were repeatedly reprinted.

More recently, the major BCD catalogs – especially Thessaly I (Nomos 4), Thessaly II (Triton XV.1), Peloponnesos I (LHS 96), Lokris-Phokis (NAC 55), but most of the other 6 as well. A lot of the material is not available just by looking at the lot descriptions in ACSearch, but PDFs of NAC 55 and the Thessaly catalogs are on issuu.com. Reading them like any standard reference monograph, I think most people quickly appreciate why they are treated as something different from auction catalogs.

BCD Lokris-Phokis on Archive: https://archive.org/details/2010NAC55
BCD Thessaly I on Issuu: https://issuu.com/cngcoins/docs/nomos_04_proof
BCD Thessaly II on Issuu: https://issuu.com/cngcoins/docs/bcd_triton_xv_virtual_catalog
(More linked in my Annotated Bibliography: https://conservatoricoins.com/ex-bcd-collection-bibliography/#BCDSales)

One important thing to recognize is that BCD’s collection(s) were created, and the auctions held, for the purpose of producing reference catalogs. (If you count the time building the collection and communicating with other scholars, they represent a 40 to 50 year effort.) The collector financed much of the publication himself, since no rational, profit-seeking firm would ever pay to catalog and print photographs of every single one of those coins, with no regard for value (or even beauty). (Many were chosen purely on intellectual merit, though Pelo I and Thess I selected “the best” & most valuable; Thess II, especially, went for scholarly comprehensiveness.) Beyond serving as the most comprehensive general references, for many mints and series they also double as die-studies.

Several are widely treated as the most important comprehensive references for the regions. Not just by dealers, but in academia too. Almost any scholarly book or article published afterward has cited them liberally (especially Thess. and Pelo., but all the others too). And a great many specialized die-studies of single mints and series are based on BCD (either the catalogs or, before then, all the photos & data he about his coins that he shared with the authors; with practice you can start to recognize his little black & white cutout photos reproduced in books and all over the journals).
“Collect the collectors…” John W Adams’ advice to J Orosz (Asylum 38, 2: p51)

Galleries https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=27154

Offline Virgil H

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: What is a "Real" Reference?
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2023, 10:59:21 pm »
These are all absolutely fantastic responses and I am posting mainly to say thank you as I have nothing much to add. I have found that, over the years, I tend to use "var" or "variation" more than any other with coins that don't totally fit (mainly with magistrates, etc., that are different or I can't figure out. I like specific references, but I am fine with the variation route. I never used "cf" before (maybe unless copied and pasted from a coin description) and will usually change that if I see it to var. But that is only because cf it is one of those terms I am not really that comfortable with even though I do know what it means.

Anyway, I really do appreciate the discussion on this, it may seem trivial and/or nitpicky, but it helps me greatly.

Virgil

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity